Penalty cannot rest on estimated turnover; advance-tax circulars cannot fix notional sale value or tax liability.

Penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act applies only where tax evasion is actually proved and quantifiable; turnover cannot be estimated in penalty proceedings, because best judgment estimation is confined to assessment proceedings. A circular prescribing floor rates for advance tax on evasion-prone commodities cannot alter the statutory basis of levy on actual sale price or taxable turnover, and it cannot create a notional sale value for penalty or tax liability. The revision therefore succeeded, and the penalty order could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty proceedings under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permit estimation of turnover for determining the tax evaded or sought to be evaded. (ii) Whether a circular prescribing floor rates for advance tax on evasion-prone commodities can bind dealers so as to fix the actual sale price and tax liability on a notional basis.

Issue (i): Whether penalty proceedings under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permit estimation of turnover for determining the tax evaded or sought to be evaded.

Analysis: Section 67 authorises penalty only when the tax evaded or sought to be evaded is actually quantifiable. The provision does not confer any power of best judgment estimation of turnover, and that power belongs to assessment proceedings under the Act. In penalty proceedings, the offence must be established from material found on inspection or otherwise, and the authority cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by estimating turnover on assumptions of possible suppression.

Conclusion: The power to estimate turnover is not available in proceedings under Section 67, and the issue is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a circular prescribing floor rates for advance tax on evasion-prone commodities can bind dealers so as to fix the actual sale price and tax liability on a notional basis.

Analysis: The circular was issued under the provision enabling advance tax collection on goods treated as evasion-prone, and its function was limited to provisional collection at the entry stage. The Act fixes tax on the actual sale price and taxable turnover, while questions of valuation, under-valuation, and suppression must be established in assessment proceedings on relevant material. A circular issued for administrative control or advance tax collection cannot alter the statutory measure of tax or create a notional sale value for levy or penalty.

Conclusion: The circular does not bind dealers so as to determine the actual sale price or tax liability, and the issue is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeds, and the penalty order as affirmed in appeal and further proceedings cannot stand because the turnover could not be estimated in penalty proceedings and the advance-tax circular did not govern actual tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 67 can be imposed only on proved and quantifiable evasion, while turnover estimation and best judgment assessment remain confined to assessment proceedings and cannot be substituted by an advance-tax circular fixing a floor rate.

---